Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...

Posts: 19,269

Local Time: 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nbcrusader In your scenario, would this still apply if the broadcast were racially offensive or deragatory to women?

And yet again, that would be a matter of opinion. For example, some women found what happened at the Super Bowl degrading. Other women didn't. That, and you have to take into account the context things are said or done, too. "All In The Family" is a classic example-Archie threw racial slurs all over the place. But it was to show how ignorant people who actually believed that stuff sounded.

Besides, as I have said before, everybody, regardless of who they are, deserves the right to speak their mind. I find hearing what anti-gay marriage people say offensive. But I don't tell them to stop expressing their opinions. I find fundamentalist religious people's preaching on TV offensive, but again, I don't stop them from expressing their opinions. Same goes with the racists.

my only question for stern and his people would be this... you haev a dump man, whose only purpose is to edit out offensive material before it hits the airwaves...

so how exactly did the "n-word" get broadcast over national airwaves?

stern didn't say it, but his show's producers can be held at fault for letting it get across the airwaves. they should be fined... again. but to take him off the air, after all the things on air that he personaly has done, over something that someone else said or did, is just plain silly.

and for the record... i can't stand howard stern. i don't find him funny what-so-ever and i do not listen to his show.

Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
so how exactly did the "n-word" get broadcast over national airwaves?

Actually the "n-word" has free reign on radio. I've heard it many times on Stern's show and local talk shows. It's usually from callers or guests I've never heard the DJ's themselves actually use this word.

Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...

Posts: 19,269

Local Time: 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar I've heard it many times on Stern's show and local talk shows.

And see, that's what confuses me. If we all know Stern's show has had this word uttered many times before, along with other comments along the lines of the one shared here (and I've heard even worse, too), why is everyone making a big fuss over this?

Oh, yeah, it's an election year. Silly me.

Quote:

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastarIt's usually from callers or guests I've never heard the DJ's themselves actually use this word.

Callers have used it. Okay, so are we going to deny people the chance to call in to shows now because some of them have said this before? How far is this crackdown going to go?

The comment shared here, the one that's gotten him into trouble, I personally find stupid. But again, I have heard worse. And this is Howard Stern. It's no secret that his show is like that. Therefore, if somebody out there is offended by the content of his show, then they can decide to not listen to him.

Well I can't find it now, but even Rush defends Stern and says people should be afraid when the Federal Government gets involved in monitoring speech.

I'm so angered by this. I'm getting a lot closer to jumping on the bandwagon and blame the down fall of this country on the religious right.

Seriously what is wrong with this country why is everyone sitting back and watching our constitution ripped to shreds. If this administration gets another 4 years of screwing up this country I don't know what I'm going to do.

if stern was preaching hate on the air, then he should be taken off... he wasn't, some stupid idiot caller made an insensitive comment, and stern's producers didn't dump it out... the producers should be fined and the show allowed to continue.

just like the producers of the super bowl half time show should be fined... just like the producers of the golden globes should be fined.

punishment is one thing... i agree with punishment and i agree that there should be "clean" airwaves.

what i don't agree with is people making up the rules as they go along. why is it that certain things that met FCC guidelines a month ago now no longer meet said guidelines? how come "shock jocks" like opie & anthony and howard stern are considered harmful to our airwaves even though there shows adhere to FCC guidelines, yet the music side of the industry is corrupted by basicly a modern form of payola? ok fine... you're not paying the DJs to play the records like in the 50s... instead you're paying clear channel or infinity who then puts together a set playlist and gives it to all 500 of their collective stations?

it's all a bunch of crap... and that crap stinks...

and oh yeah... both sides of the floor are taking the same crap... this isn't just a republican-right wing thing.

Once agree Headache, I totally agree with you. This is kind of like letting a child run wild for the first 10 years of his life then all of the sudden trying to impose discipline. Who is truly to blame for the kid's bad behavior? The people who allowed it go unchecked...the parents.

People like Howard Stern have been allowed to push the envelope for years because they bring in listeners and big profits for the parent companies. Now that the heat is on, the parents suddenly want to pull the reins in and clean things up? Too late for that. They need to ask themselves why it was okay a month ago, a year ago and 5 years ago but now its not.

I don't see the need to flagellate either Bono or Janet Jackson or Howard Stern. This is ridiculous. People know Stern is a "shock" performer, do they not? Did Janet Jackson commit murder during the Super Bowl halftime show? Did Bono commit murder on the Golden Globes? Honestly, the way they're carrying on about this stuff you'd think they did. I'm not a big fan of certain words or nudity on TV, but honestly, I'm more concerned about *many* things in this world, like AIDS in Africa, killings and terror all over the globe, abuse of women, etc, etc. Some people sure do have their priorities screwed up IMO (which is never particularly humble).

Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel And yet again, that would be a matter of opinion.

I just want to make sure where we stand. Under your scenario, we throw open the airwaves to whatever people want to broadcast (hate, violence, sex, etc.) and our only option to objectionable material is to change the channel.

Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...

Posts: 19,269

Local Time: 09:07 PM

Exactly, verte.

Quote:

Originally posted by nbcrusader I just want to make sure where we stand. Under your scenario, we throw open the airwaves to whatever people want to broadcast (hate, violence, sex, etc.) and our only option to objectionable material is to change the channel.

Yes, because like I said, it's all a matter of opinion what is and isn't objectionable. I feel I can decide for myself what I can and cannot handle seeing on TV. I don't need some group of politicians in Washington, D.C. deciding that for me.

Again, we seem to have no problem broadcasting all that stuff on the nightly news. I don't hear a big outcry from people wanting that stuff to be censored or banned. So why can't the same be said for non-news related items?

Besides, by having restrictions, it only makes people more likely to want to try and push the boundaries. If there's no restrictions, then people won't feel nearly as big a need to do that.

Originally posted by nbcrusader I just want to make sure where we stand. Under your scenario, we throw open the airwaves to whatever people want to broadcast (hate, violence, sex, etc.) and our only option to objectionable material is to change the channel.

There's a difference between broadcasting material designed to incite racial hatred and broacasting a drama containing swear words or sexually explicit scenes.

I don't accept that there is anything inherently damaging in swear words or in images of nudity or sexual activity. While there are occassions where more colourful language or explicit sexual images are inappropriate, there are also contexts in which they are a completely acceptable expression of creativity. There is nothing inherently harmful in these expressions, other than the fact that they offend the morality police.

Material which incites racial hatred, however, is inherently harmful. Its sole intention is to incite hatred and violence against a particular group of people, it has nothing to do with creativity, freedom of expression or entertainment, it exists purely to spread bigotry and lies.

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees There's a difference between broadcasting material designed to incite racial hatred and broacasting a drama containing swear words or sexually explicit scenes.

The original question was "who will set the standards?" Why should we accept your standard as opposed to the FCC? (I am not opposed to setting of a standard and do not disagree with part of your standard)